Talk:Assistant/Mad
Growl rower bazzle Billy, This is the wrong use of a mad page. Forums are the right place for back and forth discussions. Hobart, I deliberately worded what I said carefully so that it IMO fit in among the things that can be said on a main page. I did not say she was a muse I said she might be. The observation that she is never without her book is canon. In all of her appearances sans knife at her throat she has her book. The fact that there is a muse with such a book is also canon. The fact that that muse also has a smokestack on her head is again canon. The inference from this that we may be looking at the personification of that muse is a reasonable inference as long as it not stated as an incontrovertible fact. Unless someone comes up with a convincing argument I will put this back on the main page after Mondays page comes out. Hobart, you are welcome to discuss this with me here or on my talk page. I hope to do things when we are in consensus. Argadi has expressed your reluctance also. I don't wish to edit war without discussion. OTOH I feel quite strongly about my position and will not yield it unless presented with arguments that are more convincing than mine. One way or another all have to be in consensus. --Rej ¤¤? 06:33, April 15, 2011 (UTC) : Sating facts as facts is fine, but "good possibility" is an opinion and not fact. Drop that phrase and add "speculation" and the section would be less objectionable to me. But since the description of Mad pages includes "speculation" I'm not sure why you think a Mad page is inappropriate for the statement that she may be a muse. Argadi 08:38, April 15, 2011 (UTC) ::Raj - the Assistant never-without-her-book observation is appropriate for the page. But the connections between her and the Muse, while spot-on-appropriate for "Assistant/Mad" and "The Muses/Mad" type pages, as they're speculating about what hints we *could* be seeing, shouldn't go on the main pages until it's shown to be so ... (and the link from the muses photo to assistant page should hold off similarly :) Cheers — Hobart 14:42, April 15, 2011 (UTC) :: Okay. I took another look at the community portal. If what I am doing is speculation it belongs on the forum or mad page. So once I say speculation then I would have to move it here anyway. I'' don't think it is wrong to use the words "good possibility" on the main page. It states the case accurately. Well at least as accurately as a weather report. However I don't wish to edit w/o consensus. What I propose to do is put back the part about the book and its relation to the muse and leave the question open by saying "What could all this mean?". At least until the Foglios show it means what I know it must mean. I will leave the mad page as it is so that en-quiring minds can find out. I will wait till the next page is up to make the edits.(Billy can you remove your dialog?) --Rej ¤¤? 14:54, April 15, 2011 (UTC) :: It is done, Rej. I still have not figured out what I did wrong, but I chalk that up to my aphasia. -- Billy Catringer 09:19, April 16, 2011 (UTC) Much Ado Over Nothing She's an unnamed minor character & a trivial plot device. Believing more requires the kind of mindset that makes one think that the Woodchucks are Conspiring Against you. I mean, against '''you'. Obviously they are Conspiring Against ME. I mean, who wouldn't? Bosda Di'Chi (talk) 19:23, November 27, 2017 (UTC)